[What Are The Requirements For Salvation?]

Rays says: I still affirm that the only way to know the truth is by receiving a personal witness from the Holy Ghost. Or in other words, if we want to know the truth of things, I say we should strive to receive a personal witness from the Holy Ghost. ... And incidentally, my belief that we need to receive a personal witness from the Holy Ghost also means that I believe that it is only by receiving a personal witness from the Holy Ghost that we can know whether or not certain words from someone constitute scripture, and also whether or not our understanding of those words is the understanding the writer of those words had in mind. Or in other words, I believe we need a personal witness from the Holy Ghost to know not only that the Bible is the word of God, but also to know that what we [LDS] regard as the other “standard” works are the word of God.

This is not so different from saying, "We believe the Bible is inspired by God, so whenever you read it you should pray, so the Holy spirit will guide your understanding." Pentecostals would add the Holy Spirit will often highlight a certain verse or passage to our hearts as a specific word from God for us personally. So, I have no argument with seeking a spiritual sense of assurance about religious teachings.

What you say the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society says is different from what I say the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is saying. For instance, I say that while other churches have some of the truth, the true church of Christ has more of the truth that is available to us from Christ, because the true church of Christ has prophets of God who are inspired by Christ through the gift of the Holy Ghost. And as far as I know, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society doesn’t claim to have any prophets of God on the Earth today, and neither do you.

Your answer is well balanced. The Watchtower organization has issued some seeming prophetic statements, but does not claim to be a prophet. Likewise, Pentecostal and charismatic churches believe the gift of prophecy is active today, but we do not have the office of prophet (except for a few independent charismatic churches--google Paul Cain or the Kansas City prophets, if you want to research it a bit).

Also, I say that to be “saved” we simply need: Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance from our sins (the ones we personally know about through Faith in Jesus Christ), Baptism, (in obedience to our Lord’s commandments, which we can also know by Faith in Jesus Christ), and the gift of the Holy Ghost (which will help us to know of all other things we must know and do to be saved, through Faith in Jesus Christ).

When you speak of salvation here, are you speaking of exaltation? If so, I'm curious. There seems to be some difference of opinion here, as to whether allegiance to the LDS Church is a prerequisite (at least in this era). What's your take on this?

And as far as I know, both you and that Watchtower Bible and Tract Society seem to be giving a different message regarding that issue too, possibly because you do not have that particular type of Faith in Jesus Christ.

I believe the Watchtower says that allegiance to them is a modern-day requirement of salvation, though they are very cautious in how this message comes across.

The main difference between your list and what I teach is that I offer a believer's baptism, and do not see the sacrament as a prerequisite of salvation. Ironically, the Church of Christ (which is generally evangelical, or even fundamental) does adhere to what we call a sacramental view of baptism (belief that salvation comes from the act itself). Additionally, Pentecostals agree that Christians immediately begin walking with the presence of the Holy Spirit upon faith and repentence. However, we believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit comes with the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which we argue is a second work of grace--one that comes subsequent to salvation.

Not quite. I am suggesting that Christ and the Holy Ghost are the only reliable sources of godly truths today, although I also believe there is only one organization on this Earth today with more truth concerning God than any other organization. For instance, if our Lord instantly gave me all knowledge of all truth available in the Earth today, and then told me to go from one religious organization to another to find out which organization has more truth than any other, I believe I would find more truth in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than any other religious organization on Earth.

Ray, I acknowledge and respect this testimony. I have the same witness about my own movement. Any serious believer should worship in the community of faith s/he believes most closely and deeply reflects the heart of God.

prisonchaplain, I did not “tell” you, I “asked” you if you believed other religions are not getting heavy doses of anointed scripture study as much as your religion, as evidenced by the question mark at the end of my sentence. ... Heh, how can you not see that it is a question when there is obviously a question mark at the end of that sentence? Just answer the question and be done with it.

Ray, I reread the whole post, and confess I overreacted a bit. In my defense though, you had not one question mark, but three (???). I perceived it as an accusation, and still believe somebody reading the post, without knowing either of us, would think the same thing. However, you are telling me you meant it as a question, and I apologize for my sharp response. By the way, I think I answered the question in a subsequent post. Yes, I believe the Assemblies of God comes closest to reflecting God's heart, but no I don't think we are the only ones who study, nor do I believe we have a monopoly on spirituality.

Do you have an answer to my question or not?

Here's my answer: For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 1 Corinthians 13:12 (LDS KJV) I do not espouse sinless perfection as a possible spiritual state, this side of Glory. Nor do I believe anyone will have a complete understanding of God's heart and mind, prior to the second advent of Jesus. If such things were possible, God never would have had to command us to love each other and be united.

I think the answer is simple. Some people have misperceptions and misunderstandings concerning what the truth really is because they do not receive a personal witness from the Holy Ghost to help them know the truth, because if they did, they would know the truth, with God as their witness.

Let me strain at a gnat to make a point. I've seen strings posted here about whether or not certain soft drinks are permissible, according to the WoW. Another string dealt with the advisability of Christians listening to certain types of music that include overt satanic trappings (whether they be serious or marketing gimics). So, even in the LDS Church, there are differences of opinion on matters we all would likely agree are "nonessentials." However, if I take your injunction to rely on the personal witness from the Holy Ghost, then one might conclude that all true believers would reach the same conclusions.

And btw, all religious organizations cannot possibly be true, and even all “Christian” organizations cannot possibly be true, considering the fact that some organizations are teaching some things which directly conflict with some teachings of other organizations.

To repeat my quote from another post: in essentials, unity. I would suggest that those issues that are truly essential are few indeed.

Or in other words, logic alone should tell us that one particular organization has more truth than any other.

I generally agree. For example, I believe the Assemblies of God has discerned correctly how God intended the baptism in the Holy Ghost with the initial, physical evidence of speaking in tongues, to operate in his church. We're right, and the Bible Baptists (who think tongues is probably of the Devil) are wrong. My organization is more right than they are on this matter. However, I look forward to sharing eternal fellowship with my Bible Baptist bretheren, on that great and glorious day.

Then I believe you do not see the fact that our Lord chose certain people to be his apostles, giving Peter the keys of the kingdom, as the formation of our Lord’s “single religious organizational authority” on Earth at that time, serving as an example of how our Lord’s organization should function forever.

No, I don't. That is a teaching the Church of LDS shares with the Roman Catholic Church. I believe in the "priesthood of all believers." I believe that God has called all Christians to fulfill the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). Yes, some are given special callings (teacher, pastor, missionary, etc.). However, while human organizations (church governmental structures) can be used of God to screen those who claim giftings, no single organization has been ordained by God to have monopoly power in this area, IMHO.

What course of action would you consider to be “fair” when I am not sure of what you are saying? I have simply been asking questions to determine whether or not I have correctly understood you, giving you what I thought you are saying so that you could respond to those thoughts and possibly correct my understanding if in error. I have not intentionally been trying to portray you as hostile or judgmental, and I am sorry if you feel that way.

I accept this, and apologize again, for overreacting. I read into your question an accusation, based on the "tone" I perceived. Again, though, your inquiry, followed by 3 question marks (???) would probably be seen by most readers are being a little more charged than a simple question.

And btw, if I have actually succeeded in patching things up between us, then I would prefer that you simply respond to the thoughts I have already shared with you concerning the main topic of our conversation, without ever mentioning the idea that you once thought I had harsh feelings against you.

I made the critical mistake of responding to HOW I perceived you were responding, rather than WHAT you were saying/asking. I'll obey my own suggestion to get

[Indirectly Discovering Anti-mormons]

Jason says to Lisajo,  Clergy persons are requried to administer to all faiths.  That goes for the military too.  They specialize in their own faith, but are usually willing to help others if requested.

Jason is basically right. Chaplains in a correctional setting have even more responsibility to facilitate the religious practice of those outside our faith. HOWEVER, we do not officiate or lead those services. We recruit volunteers, acquire teaching materials and acourterments, and offer general spiritual counsel.

On the other hand, it is not unusual for inmates of other faiths to attend the services I do conduct. Likewise, our volunteers will often have inmates sit in on their services who are not practing members.

Are we getting to the heart of your question Lisajo?

[Indirectly Discovering Anti-mormons]

My question is why this is really all that important.  Most Anti's i know are very open and not willing to sit back and keep quiet.  I'm not a fan of the parts that I've seen of the "Other Side of Heaven".  Does that make me an anti?

I was trying to be a bit facetious with this. On the other hand, if you look at several of the reviews of the movie, you will find that several panned it simply because it was Mormon story. A few LDS folk (and others) rated it as poor or mediocre for artistic reasons. "To each his own," on those. The story resonated with me, because I have experienced missionary life, and because it counters the normal anti-missionary bias of Hollywood and some in secular academia.

[Indirectly Discovering Anti-mormons]

Just curious,  If you Changed you're religion to say Catholic or some thing, Would you lose you're job?  Does it matter what religion you are or did they hire you for What religion you are, or was it schooling you had? Am very interested let me know please, Thanks a bunchhhhhhhhhhh

Ironically, if I changed to Catholic I could work longer. Prison chaplaincy, at the federal level, is a law enforcement position. Therefore, under normal circumstances, we face mandatory retirement at 57. However, if there is a documented shortage of clergy for a particular faith group (i.e. Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis, Muslim imams), then the age restriction can be waived.

I was hired as a Protestant chaplain, and was required to have the following qualifications: M.Div from an ATS approved seminary (or equivalent coursework for faith traditions that do not offer this exact degree), religious ordination as a clergyperson (or equivalent for faith groups that do not have a clergy cadre), Two years full-time religious work, chaplaincy endorsement by my faith group, and ability to facility the religious needs of people outside my faith tradition.

[Indirectly Discovering Anti-mormons]

Setheus says:  Actually Chaps, I already have you figured out.  And I did it without asking any questions direct or indirect.

You just keep on "planting those seeds". Just be careful, you're a good person so you may find that you're not a sower but fertile soil.

I'll respond to that with a not-so-famous quote: Who knows what might happen when good people get together?--by me.

[What Are The Requirements For Salvation?]

For instance, the Book of Mormon is only what it truly is, and if it truly is what it claims to be within its own pages, then only those who know the truth regarding the Book of Mormon truly know the truth concerning that issue, no matter how many other people try to teach otherwise.

Let me see if I understand what Ray is getting at. The COJCLDS is the only organization that teaches that the Standard Works are holy scripture, and that JS is a latter day prophet, and that it is the restored Christian church in these last days. Ergo, it contains the most truth, and any truth-seeker will discover this and join it, if s/he has an open heart. Is that your bottom-line?

I want to see how far you'll go with this. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society says that it is "the faithful and wise servant," and is more or less the only source of godly truth in these last days. It cautiously suggests that there is no salvation, at least in this dispensation, outside their movement, because there is no other faithful and wise servant.

So, Ray...to cut through all the banter about different denomination teaching differently on various subjects, you are not really saying that my church might have the best teaching on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Baptists are clearest on Water Baptism, and the LDS Church has garnered the best understanding of Joseph Smith's ministry and teachings? That's not your bottom-line, is it? Rather, are you not suggesting that the COJCLDS is basically the only reliable source of godly truths today?

So you simply believe people in other “religions” are not getting “heavy doses of anointed Scripture study” as much as people in your religion??? ...

prisonchaplain, I asked you a question because I was trying to understand what you had said

Ray, you don't see the accusatory tone of your query? I've left it up for others to see, because it's pretty straightforward to me. I never said anything about other religions, yet YOU TELL ME THAT I BELIEVE OTHER RELIGIONS ARE NOT GETTING HEAVY DOSES OF ANOINTED SCRIPTURE STUDY AS MY RELIGION IS. I never said anything like that. You put words in my mouth that make me look judgmental, and, quite frankly, to those here not familiar with my other posts, like an anti-Mormon.

... and instead of answering my question, which would have probably helped to bridge the gap in our lack of understanding, it is you who changed the subject by suggesting that what I asked, and what I said, had nothing to do with the conversation we were having.

I believed it was time to deal with this gnawing problem. You did not ask me a question, you made an accusation.

You seemed to be suggesting that not only do we need to listen to the Holy Ghost to understand the truth, (as I had said) but we also need “heavy doses of anointed Scripture study” to understand the truth, to which I responded by asking if you think only the people in your religion are those who have enough “anointed Scripture study” to understand the truth.

Okay...thank you for revising your accusation, so it at least has the semblance of a question. No, I do not believe that.

You do realize that your religion teaches some things that other religions do not teach, don’t you?

Yes.

So what in your mind keeps some people from knowing the truth about those things which some other people know about?

Why don't all Muslims become Christians. Why don't all Christians become Pentecostals? Why don't all non-LDS Christians believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet? God knows. Even the Apostle Paul had numerous enemies.

When it comes down to it, I do not see in Scripture that a single religious organizational authority was ever a necessity. I know that most LDS interpret the calls to unity this way. Snow and I have had many exchanges on this issue. I see unity in groups like Promise Keepers, Billy Graham's cross-denominational crusades, etc. He does not. You probably do not. My sense is that it may be a greater miracle that the many Christian denominations cooperate as well as we do, versus us succeeding in creating an artificial organizational unity, while remaining internally divided.

And btw, the next time I say something that does not seem to relate to the conversation we are having, according to your perception, please simply ask me how I think what I said relates to our conversation instead of trying to portray me as the only one among us who is making false assumptions.

Ray, I do not want to get into a contest with you over who's the most thin-skinned, or who's making the most assumptions. I perceive myself to be patient, and pretty good at understanding where others are coming from. However, I've too often seen you put words in my mouth, or attempt to portray me as hostile or judgmental. I've tried to gently prod you away from such generalizations, but they keep cropping back up. Other people are reading these posts, and I know some people skim topics. They will see you accusing me of thinking I'm a clergyperson so I know more than you, that my denomination studies and no one else does, etc. etc. They will not likely look back and see that I said no such things. So, I'm asking you to be fair, and not require me to simply ask questions when I see such things, to find out what you were thinking about.

p.s.  Diversion is one of Satan's greatest weapons, so please be on guard.

Okay, here I'll ask the question. What are you getting at?

[Indirectly Discovering Anti-mormons]

If you want to discover someone's motives for coming here--especially if they are not Mormon, don't ask them directly You've got to ask them a seemingly innocuous question, that subtley reveals their true feelings.

My suggestion? Ask them how the liked the movie, "The Other side of Heaven." You should find out fairly quickly if they are ANTI, EX, NUETRAL, or Open-minded/hearted.

Do you think my scheme has merit? These strings are loose anyway...so feel free to comment on the movie, if you'd like.

My view of the movie can be viewed at this link (look for "PrisonRev's" post):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-review...y=public&page=9

[What Are The Requirements For Salvation?]

Rays says:  And yet, with all that “melding of the minds”, people in some “schools” continue to disagree with people in other “schools”, and even with some people in the same “school”, regardless of what everyone has to teach.  Consider that for a moment, and then tell me if you believe all of those people who think they are teaching the truth are really teaching the truth.

I've quoted this before, but it fits your inquiry: In essentials, unity. In nonessentials, liberty. In all things, charity. So, yes. Christians can disagree with each other about many matters without being disagreeable. And yet, if you ask me, do I think all my seminary buddies are teaching the truth, I would say yes. Do I think by brothers over at the Baptist seminary are teaching their people the truth, I'd say yes. Methodist? Yes. Lutheran? Yes. Do we disagree on some matters? Sure. 1 Corinthians 13 tells us that we see through a glass that is cloudy. When we see Jesus, then we will see clearly.

So you simply believe people in other “religions” are not getting “heavy doses of anointed Scripture study” as much as people in your religion???

Ray? Hello? Are you there? I figured you must have been talking to someone else, and then read part of my response. How about if we get ? I responded to your suggestion that all we had to do to discern truth was listen to the Holy Ghost by suggesting that Scripture Study is necessary too. That's all I said. I did not relate my comment to Mormonism or Church of Christ-ism, or any other ism.

Frankly, you often read anti-LDS thoughts into my comments...thoughts that are never stated, implied, or even hinted at. I'm thinking your past struggles sometimes color these post-conversations incredibly. The Prince of Peace, and the Comforter can set you free such bondage.

[What Are The Requirements For Salvation?]

Rays says:  Heh, just to help set the record straight, I think “religions” are distinguished by their systems of beliefs and practices, so yes, any system of beliefs and practices “distinct” from another system of beliefs and practices constitutes a “different” religion.

Nearly every major religious systems has "schools of thought" within them. Islam has Sunni, Shia and Sufis. Buddhism has Zen, Pure Land, etc. Christianity has Catholicism, Protestantism, Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, Pentecostalism, etc. Within the major religions, these different theological streams may disagree over certain teachings or forms of worship. However, they generally consider each other part of the family.

Or in other words, all of the “Assembly of God” churches, “Catholic” churches, “Methodist” churches, “Baptist” churches, “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint” churches, and all other “churches” are distinguished by their particular beliefs and practices.  And while they do have some things in common, they are not truly “one” with other churches of other religions.

I beg to differ. I believe I'll spend eternity with many Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, etc. We are part of the one true universal church. We do worship Jesus in spirit and in truth.

We may have different denominations, but we are part of the same religion. So, perhaps this is a matter of degree. At some point a "denomination" becomes so different it really is a different religion all together. Ray, do you believe the LDS Church is so different from the Church of Christ (since you're familiar with this group) that is is truly a different religion (for example, to the extent that Islam and Christianity are different religions)?

[Two Types Of Sin]

I think it is not easy to be a repentant christian...if it were we wouldnt be having this conversation.  I do believe that its esier the more you want it and the harder you strive towards it.

Here's a true story that illustrates the difficulty of this issue. A friend of mine was raised Baptist, and was taught, "Once saved always saved." One day he shared his testimony, saying, "It may or may not be true, but 'once saved always saved' saved me." He had struggled with a particular sin (which he did not name) for 15 years. Every day he committed the sin (knowingly). Every night he repented. He kept at it because, despite his repeated failures, he knew that God still loved him, and he still belonged to God. Finally, after 15 years he got his deliverance. Today he is a deacon--ironically, in a church that does not teach "once saved always saved."

We've been taught that to repent means to ask forgiveness and to turn from the sin. So, did he repent? Apparently he did, for he ultimately found liberty from the bondage. Did he get away with sinning for 15 years? I would guess those were the most difficult 15 years of his life.

I do not buy into "once saved always saved." However, as hard as it is to repent, those who have truly embraced God's love will probably find it ultimately easier to repent than not to. God chases after us, woos us back, draws us by his Holy Ghost. The most miserable person in the world is the believer who is living in sin. S/he can't enjoy the unholy behavior, but doesn't have full peace with God either.

[On Islam And Christianity]

Pushka, thanks for a relevent and intriguing topic. Islam does indeed share many teachings, biblical characters, and practices with Christianity. Islam affirms the virgin birth. It honors Jesus as a prophet. It considers Christians and Jews to be "people of the book." It calls for the worship of one God. They affirm Adam and Eve, Moses, and several other prophets. They command affirmation of God and his final prophet, regular prayers, and charitable giving. They encourage spreading the word of God.

And yet...and yet. I recall, in 1985, I had a conversation with a gentleman in Hong Kong, who was probably from Pakistan. He spent two hours telling me that Islam was an extension of Christianity. If only Jesus' disciples had not corrupted his teachings, and become apostate. I then asked him if he had peace with me saying that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, God himself. He said, "No." I responded that I also did not have peace with the teaching that Jesus was a mere human prophet. We left at peace, both having learned much.

Now, here's my wrench in the monkey works: Are there similarities between Islam's relationship to Christianity, and the relationship between the LDS Church and the rest of the Christian world?

Some similarities I see:

1. Strong belief in Jesus, but with the idea that the church corrupted his teachings over time.

2. Belief that God ordained a later prophet to restore lost truths, and proper worship.

3. A regard for Christianity in general, but a belief that it has fuller understanding of God's truths.

Any thoughts?

[What Are The Requirements For Salvation?]

Or in other words, a degree or diploma only shows that a person has learned what the teachers at a college or university tried to teach them, which isn't necessarily the truth... and I'm not suggesting that those teachers are going out of their way to try to teach something they know for a fact is not true, either.

Ironically, what you say here is often quite accurate relative to Bible colleges. However, in graduate school seminaries it is less so. And I say this as one who did work at a denominational school! In undergraduate Bible study programs it is often the task of students to digest what the professor produces, do a bit of research, and to be able to restate the teacher's wisdom for exams. HOWEVER, at the graduate level, original research becomes much more important. Students must analyse for themselves. Exams are usually essay in nature, and occasionally, lengthy research papers serve in lieu of the exams.

Another interesting factor about seminary students--most of them are in the late twenties to mid-thirties. They are married, have children, and they work 25 hours per week. Most often, they are already clergypeople who have come to a place in their ministries where they want a fresh vision, fresh anointing...they want to study to show themselves approved, workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God.

Or in other words, to know the truth we simply need to commune with God and receive His assurance of the truth, although some information in books can help us to have something to think about as we seek His assurance.

If you are speaking of simply knowing God or discerning his will, you might be correct generally. However, when it comes to discerning the Bible and to teaching God's people (whether as a lay-instructor, or as an overseer of a congregation), I would suggest heavy doses of anointed Scripture study.

[What Are The Requirements For Salvation?]

And btw, don’t get the idea that your true knowledge and experiences in another religion [emphasis mine] wouldn’t benefit you as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, either.  As President Hinckley has said, bring all the good you have with you, and see if we can add to it.

Ray, you have unintentionally highlighted a key issue. Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints one of many denominations within the greater Christian family, or it it another religion? I suppose the answer is YES. It's another denomination, in that members affirm much of what the rest of Christianity does, including being born again. YES it's another religion, in that some of its distinctives are strong enough that even you refer evangelicalism (or perhaps Pentecostalism) as another religion.

I'm not quite sure yet how this tension gets resolved, but it sure does make the conversation interesting.

You did hear me when I said that I was once a member of another Christian church, didn't you?

I believe you mentioned the Church of Christ. So, does the LDS Church enjoy your acappello singing?

[What Are The Requirements For Salvation?]

Rays says:  I also believe brother Nibley was mainly trying to warn any and all “university” graduates of the dangers in putting too much stock in a “university” diploma, or education, implying that gaining a “university” education has nothing to do with whether or not someone can gain true knowledge.

And the reason I brought it up for prisonchaplain was because I thought he was putting to much stock in his status as a “clergyman”, believing that by going to “college” he was able to learn more about God than any of us “laymen”.

I'll deal with Bro. Nibley later. First, for Ray!

The year is 1993. After nearly seven years of service as a missionary in South Korea, the Holy Spirit clearly leads me to enroll at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. Within six weeks of enrollment, I'm sitting with six other new students, facing the President. Del Tarr, who had served many years as a missionary in West Africa, recounts to us the story of Jesus washing the feet of his twelve disciples. He then tells us that if we are to make God's best use of the advanced theological degrees we are pursuing, if we are to lead God's church in God's way, if we are to be counted worthy Shepherds, then we'd better learn the servant-leadership Jesus modeled. Bottom line? GRAB A TOWEL! And, he handed each of us a brand new towel. He then encouraged us not to wait until we graduated, wait until we'd dawned our 'penguine outfits' before we began ministry. Get out and do it now! Learn while you study!

I am pro-education, and it does sadden me when some laypeople despise the noble labor of study. But, quite frankly, a powerful testimony is often more convincing than the most carefully prepared lesson. Furthermore, a single moment of Holy Ghost-anointed insight can bring more life than month's of uninspired book work.

My school hit a great balance with its slogan: KNOWLEDGE ON FIRE! I hope this tale helps you understand my heart better, Ray.

[My View Of Evangelicals]

Rays asks:  So on the Day of Judgment, if you were to see all the faithful LDS judged as being faithful to the knowledge we were given of God, you wouldn’t be miffed?  Heh, I think I can safely predict that as a “No” and say “Thank you”.

It is said that the two greatest surprises on Judgment Day are who gets into heaven and who doesn't.

As a counter point, I will say that if I were to see you and other Christians judged as being faithful to the knowledge you were given of God, I wouldn’t be miffed either.

I trust you will be unmiffed even if it turns out the Celestial Kingdom (exaltation) is the only heavenly realm, and you're stuck for all eternity with us.

But I’m pretty sure that some of us will end up with more knowledge of God than others of us, because from among all the knowledge of God we are all trying to share with each other, some of us believe some things that some others of us do not believe, so it only stands to reason that only those who accept all the knowledge of God that He gives us will be rewarded for accepting the truth that some others have rejected.  For instance, Joseph Smith was either a prophet of God or he wasn’t, and if he was, then we all should accept his knowledge of God, because if we do not accept the knowledge of God that God gave to us through Joseph, then we will have essentially cut ourselves off from the benefits of the knowledge we would have gained by accepting that knowledge of God.

If Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then, as things stand now, you'll be in the Celestial Kingdom, and I'll be in the Terrestial one. If he was not a prophet, but you're still in heaven, then, I don't know--maybe I'll have extra stars in my crown? Maybe I will have accomplished more because the faith I taught was not hampered by misunderstanding?

I am certain of this: lovers of God want the fullest and most accurate understanding of him possible. We want to know whom we love. And, my guess is that all believers in God would say, "Amen!" to that.

[God & Christmas]

Sgallon asks:  I am sorry but I feel a bit left out. I am in the process of spending - oh heck I gave up counting - hours with kids. 6:00 AM practices. Regular practices. Rides home and too practice. Trips. My own kid. Various ages. Dang.... I could go on endlessly. Oh yeah..... I teach distance ed. at a college to inmates and have made many support visits to the prisons. But yet, I am a godless heathen. Don't I count?

The vast majority of your good deeds are covered under Mom/Pop's Day. Your volunteer work for the prison would be covered under Volunteer Appreciation Day. You can even get a federal government certificate to go with that one! But, what does a self-described godless heathen expect from a distinctly Christian holiday, other than to piggyback on some of the good eats, the parties, the presents, and some of the general goodwill and cheer that coat-tails with the holiday.

[My View Of Evangelicals]

Snows says: Man! It's hard to get a clear answer from you. You are less explicit than even the Bible.

Hey...I'm neither a prophet, nor will my writings ever be canonized.

So when you correctly acknowledge the giver of the gift - are you required to affirm certain things about Him - for example homoousis, cosubstantiality, indivisibility and ungeneration? Or are you required to disaffirm certain thing about the giver, like not believe that He was the brother of Satan?

In other words, how wrong can you be about who God and Jesus are, and still be saved? At what point do one's beliefs about God become so wrong, that we could say, "You're not approaching the giver of the gift." I'm going to punt at this point, and defer my answer until I've completed the "How Wide the Divide Book."

Concerning the gift: If God says it is offered to whoever believes in his Son, and that no one else can have it. But, you turn around and say: Almost everyone can have the gift. However, God has an even better gift for those who will join our church, submit to our rituals, and obey our spiritual regimen. If evangelicals are right about this, then at bare minimum, God would rightly be miffed.

Snow asks: What about if you lived in the jungle hundreds of years ago and had only heard tidbits about the giver of the gift and didn't know enough to believe and understand correct doctrine or not but accepted him as your Savior anyway?

Some evangelicals will tell you that they were lost. They did not know Jesus, and Jesus is the only way. Others have suggested that they will be judged by how they responded to what little they knew. Romans 1 speaks to creation itself being a testimony of God. When we are encouraging our people to support missions we tell them that we are safer to assume that those who do not hear may be without hope, and so we had better get the word to them! However, my bottom-line answer is that I'm not sure. I know that God is good. God is just. On the Day of Judgment, when we see who is redeemed and who is doomed, there will be no second-guessing, and no hesitation. All will declare that God was good and merciful and just.

[My View Of Evangelicals]

Snow says: Well now it looks like we are getting somewhere. So, after accepting Christ and becoming "saved," we are then required to obey the commandments, at least in some measure, in order to maintain our salvation. Right?

The short answer is: right.

The longer answer is: Jesus says that if you love him you will keep his commands. He says we must love one another for love is of God and anyone that does not love does not know God (i.e. is not saved). Several of the seven churches in Asia minor are warned that if they do not return to their first love, do not reject the false teachings of the Nicolaitan, do not abandon spiritual pride and lukewarmness, etc. that "their candles would be removed." Jesus parable of the seed and the sower, suggests that some seed (gospel) would result in immediate conversion, but the convert would, after a seemingly rapid spurt of growth, whither and die. Other seed would seem to grow, but then would be choked by the concerns of this world. I'll even cite a line from a popular contemporary Christian song: What about the change...what about the difference? (this query, after the new converts speaks of getting the fish symbols and Jesus bumperstickers). So, the longer answer is also yes--Jesus is coming back for a glorious bride, not a blemished one.

Forgiveness is available to the believer. However, we are indeed called to life in the Spirit.

[My View Of Evangelicals]

Snow says: Okay, I got that. When one comes unto Christ, they have to really mean it Still people have "come unto Christ" and then wind up somehow raping and murdering, or maybe buying the services of prostitutes (and getting caught and aplogizing and crying about it on TV only to do it again) or if you extend it out to sinning in general, then everybody who comes unto Christ winds up sinning again. Which brings me back to the original question - can one who is saved committ rape or murder.

As I see it, there are three answers:

1. Yes, once saved, always saved and no amount of raping and murdering can change that?

While in some ways, this is the least palatable answer, it is the closest to being accurate. I do not subscribe to "once saved always saved." However, it is difficult to lose one's salvation. The Bible tells that God chases after us, that there is no where we can hide from him. However, if the "saved" one continually rejects or ignores the conviction of the Holy Spirit, s/he will come to the place of having once been "saved" but now being "lost."

2. No, you cannot rape and murder, after being saved, and still stay saved - obeying God is a condition of staying saved.

There is no perfection this side of glory. Rapists and murders have been gloriously restored to faith. The balance is that Scripture does warn us about guarding our salvation, enduring to the end. So, those who believe God can be played are only deluding themselves.

3. No, the raping and murdering indicate that the person wasn't really ever saved to begin with - so no matter how sincere they seemed or how their life changed, sin after the fact indicates that it was a false "saved."

There certainly are cases where the crimes proves the darkness and insincerity of the heart. Yet, I would not want to be the one that makes this condemnation. The answers will come on the Day of Judgment when Jesus will say to some, "Depart from me, I never knew you."

Sorry I can't package this up neatly for you, Snow. When it comes to matters of the heart, of sincerity of faith, of whether a struggling "believer" is going to endure to the end or not, we often will not know until the day when we see Jesus.

[God & Christmas]

PC, I think that Christmas time helps those that don't always do charitable or Christlike things to be reminded to do them. ... I try to be Christlike in my daily dealings with my fellowman but can even increase my own Christlike ways and use it as a time to reflect on what I have done during the year to live a Christ centered life.

A very balanced and excellent analysis. You were able to see that when I suggest that Christmas is a great time for presenting the Good News I do not mean that we should not do so throughout the year. I'm suggesting a special emphasis, not a new endeavor.

To the majority of the world there is no Christmas. When you factor in the number of asian countries that do not believe in Christ add to that the Muslim countries and other non-believers and it is a minority of the world that believes in Christ and in Christmas. The rest it is a holiday of cheer and end of a year. Not sure how much cheer there is in places where they wonder if they will get a scoop of rice or mush to eat on Christmas.

Roughly two-thirds of the world is non-Christian. Yet, even in most non-Christian countries, there is a Christian witness. In China, for example, estimates range from 40 to well over 100 million believers. I suppose this is the good news/bad news. There is still much to be done, no doubt!

For me the greater celebration is Easter and the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. While his being born was a great start it was his resurrection that will bring us from the grave.

One year a Catholic friend made us a nativity scene. On the manger he put a cross. I first I thought, "How morbid!" This is the beautiful birth scene of Jesus. Why put his instrument of execution here. Then I realized that Jesus was indeed a marked man, even from birth. So, for Christians, the resurrection is absolutely the fulfillment of the Promise.

On the other hand, purely from the standpoint of winning souls--Christmas does bring us greater crowds.

[God & Christmas]

That’s pretty much what I believe we should do every day, PC, so it seems to me that you don’t see Christmas day any differently than any other day.

Ray, we got a lot of visitors at Christmas time to our churches. So, we are careful to present the Plan of Salvation in a way that newcomers will understand. I would be surprised to learn that you did not take advantage of spiritual opportunities that God lays before you, as well.

And btw, since you have brought up the idea before about how you think we [LDS] are declaring “another” gospel

Ray, you throw out these accusatory statements with such ease. I have not brought up the idea that LDS are declaring another gospel. In response to querries directed towards me about the doctrine of salvation, I have suggested that this is a possiblity.

As for your lengthy Scripture quote, I'm not sure what your bottom-line point is. If I'm not mistaken, we both believe that Christians should be doing good works. However, my impression is that YOU (and perhaps the LDS?) believe that these labors are a prerequisite of salvation, whereas I (and most evangelicals) suggest that they are the fruit or product of salvation.

[God & Christmas]

Christmas celebrates the advent (or coming) of Jesus. If he came because God loves the world, and so that we might not perish but have everlasting life, then I contend that the primary purpose of the holiday ought to be to offer the many souls that wander into our houses of worship the Plan of Salvation.

The family gatherings, the general increase in kindness and charitable giving, the way people tend to appreciate each other more--these are pleasant added blessings. However, this year I am purposing to follow Jesus' admonition to "Seek first the kingdom of God."

May your Christmas be Kingdom-filled and rich in blessings! B)

[What Are The Requirements For Salvation?]

I would thank you for that compliment if I didn’t think it would encourage you to believe that I feel “honored” for having a “clergyman” think that the words of this “layman” have some merit.

Or in other words, I have the feeling that you think most “clergymen” are more correct than "laymen" in their understanding of God and His gospel simply because most “laymen” do not go to college to study these things, as if that has anything to do with giving someone an understanding of the truth and authority from God.

Ray, you won't thank me for saying I find your posts heartfelt and intriguing, because I'm a clergyperson? Look, I'm no elitist. I come from a movement that has struggled with just the opposite...anti-intellectualism. So, I suppose my comments about having respect for those whom God has gifted with education, a call to teach, and the talents to comment intelligently on matters of theology came across a bit strident to you. I meant the compliment to you both seriously and simply, and meant no condescension whatsoever.

[Testimonies And Small Children]

Lisajo says: One thing that I have always some what disliked is..............Parents dragging small (very small) children up to the pulpit( In sac. meeting ) to bare their testimonies, and then standing behind them telling their small child what to say..... I feel that the parents need to let their child decide and let them speak for them self, I have seen this everywhere i have gone to church, Frankly it scares me and i have never done it with my Kids

I've been accused of being a tangental thinker, so forgive me if this seems off-topic. However, this issue is very similar to the dilemma of when we should encourage our children to become "born again." For example, my five year old knows that, "Jesus died on the cross for my sins." She says things like, "I love Jesus Christ the most." In fact, today, our 16-month old fell down, and had a tear in her eye as she wimpered. The five year old lays hands on her and prays, "Dear Lord, just hug this baby now. Take hear tear a way. Just hold her." All these anecdotes make me believe she's old enough to understand the gospel. Yet, I asked her what "sin" means the other day, and she really didn't know.

Our girl clearly loves Jesus, but I do not want to lead her in a prayer or experience that she will later forget, and enver really embrace as her own. God watches over our little ones, and we need to let them grow in the nurture and admonition of the Lord at their own pace.

All this to say, "Amen!" to not treating children like little religious puppets.

[My View Of Evangelicals]

Snow says: Okay then - The prerequisites for salvation are:

1. Faith

2. Repentance

3. Correct understanding of certain doctrine

... but not forgiving others. What about rape and murder? Does one have to refrain from rape and murder in order to be saved?

Perhaps understanding #2 might help a bit. It's not, "God forgive my sins, so I can keep on living my life the way I want to, and keep on asking forgiveness as I keep on sinning." When we repent, with the help of God we do indeed turn from our wicked ways. I'm not sorry I got caught. I am sorry that I have offended a holy, righteous God with my immoral acts. HOWEVER, I realize I cannot possibly clean myself up, before presenting myself to God. So I come "just as I am." God forgives me because of Jesus' acceptable payment for my sins, and as a RESULT, by the power of God, that now lives within me, my life is no longer mine. I have given it to God. THE RESULT WILL BE THAT I FORGIVE, THAT I FORSAKING RAPING, MURDERING, LYING, THIEVING, ETC.

Snow asks: My other question would relate to the salvific prerequisite of believing correct doctrine about Christ - is it an affirmative requirement - in that you have to believe certain things about Christ or a negative requirement - in that you are prohibited from believing certain things?

You continue to frame the very fancy and difficult sounding "correct doctrine" as a work. What happens with salvation is really an acceptance of God's gift. It only makes sense that we acknowledge correctly both the gift and the giver!